Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a number of verify tags that should be resolved. Further there are a number of MoS errors; these include: the specific bands should neither be bold or italicized, while Pioneer 10 and Galileo are at least in one instance not in italics. The link "South Equatorial Belt" redirect back to this article, and should be removed. Why are AsH3, GeH4 mentioned by chemical symbol instead of name, like the other compounds? Why in the middle of the article suddenly use non-scientific measurements: "390 km/h (240 mph)"?

   I think the name of the bands should actually be italicized. Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

   While I know not concerning outside the earth, I would believe a geographic figure would not be italicized, based on WP:ITALICS. However, if you are confident in your cause I will let it pass in good faith. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are [citation needed] tags in the document; these must be seen to.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   The article is heavily edited, making a copyedit during review impractical. However, they all seem to be constructive edits.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are lots of forced image sizes. These should in general never be used in mainspace—with the exception of the first image as well as specific diagrams that are not readable at 180px. I would ask that all non-critical images have the forced image size removed, and those in portrait direction instead tagged with "upright". If it is necessary to force the image size on some of the diagrams, please choose one width only (which should probably be 300px). I have corrected this in my copyedit.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few matters that must be seen to, and the article will pass. If there are any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the MoS issues you've mentioned. I haven't found any verify tags, and the only forced image I can see in the text is the atmosphere chart, which needs to be big to be seen. I've contacted this page's main editor about the tag. Serendi^podous 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault; I meant clarify. There are two of these, and they should either be rewritten, or assumed good enough and removed. As for the image sizes, I took the freedom to correct them myself.

I fixed one of them. Serendi^podous 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I fixed remaining issues. I also increased the size of the one of the charts, because it was unreadable. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All executed. Congratulations with a Good Article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)